Occupation during and after the War (South

East Europe)
By Milan Ristovi

The occupation of South East Europe 1915-1918 had a complex structure reflecting
different and often conflicting territorial claims and goals. In the fall of 1915 Serbia was
divided into Austro-Hungarian, Bulgarian and German occupation zones. The civilian
population was exposed to various measures of repression, including mass internment,
forced labor, and a de-nationalization policy, which sparked a Serbian uprising in early
1917. In Romania, the military occupation administration was also organized to exploit the
economic resources of the country. Albania, although spared from major military
operations, was divided into Austro-Hungarian, Italian and French-Greek occupation zones.

Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The first occupation of Serbian territories in 1914
3 The second occupation of Serbia 1915-1918
3.1 Austro-Hungarian Military General Governorate (MGG) 1915-1918
4 The German occupation zone
4.1 Friction over the division of territory in Serbia 1915-1916
4.2 Policy toward the Population
5 The Bulgarian occupation zone
5.1 Repression and Policy of Bulgarization
6 The Austro-Hungarian occupation of Montenegro
7 Romania: Between Occupation and Collaboration
8 Albania: Besetztes Freundesland
9 Conclusion
Notes

Selected Bibliography
Citation

Introduction
In the summer of 1914, Serbias fate was one of the key issues in discussions of the Dual
Monarchys war aims. Contrary to the prevailing attitude in political and military circles in Vienna, a
possible annexation of Serbia was strongly opposed in Budapest, as it was viewed as a threat to
the Hungarian position within the Dual Monarchy.[1] Budapest was much more inclined towards a
maximum reduction of Serbia and the division of its territory among neighboring countries.
Reduced Serbia would retain quasi-independence and be placed under Austro-Hungarian
control.[2] The Joint Ministerial Council at the end of June insisted on isolation and reduction,
but not...complete destruction. [3] The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Leopold Berchtold (18631942) was of the opinion that Serbia should be reduced as much as possible in favor of its
neighbors. Minister of War Alexander Krobatin (1849-1933) and Chief of the General Staff, Franz
Conrad von Htzendorf (1852-1925), insisted on the permanent occupation of the area of Mava
and Belgrade. However, permanent occupation was tabled as an option in discussions at the end
of July. The idea of mollifying the neighboring countries with promises of Serbian territory was
considered, on the condition that they enter the war on the Austro-Hungarian side or remain
neutral.[4]
In Vienna the future of Montenegro was seen as part of the Serbian question and the organization
of the occupation was left solely to Austria-Hungary.[5] In 1914, despite a secret alliance with the
Central Powers, Romania decided to remain neutral. However, the combination of Entente
pressure and the promise of French and Russian support for the fulfillment of territorial claims
towards Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary (which was not willing to make concessions in
Transylvania) brought Romania into the war in 1916 on the Allied side. The system established
after its military collapse was mostly the result of improvisation, impelled by the fact that its territory
was economically important to the Central Powers.[6] Albania, although spared from large-scale
military activities, was occupied and divided between the warring factions.[7]

The first occupation of Serbian territories in 1914

In 1914 Austro-Hungarian troops unsuccessfully raided Serbia three times, leading to great losses
on both sides. In temporarily occupied zones, Austro-Hungarian troops committed a number of
atrocities against the civilian population, especially in the area of Mava. Belgrade fell to the 3rd
Austro-Hungarian Army in December 1914, and preparations for the establishment of an
occupation regime began. General Stjepan Sarkoti (1858-1939) was appointed GovernorGeneral.[8] The defeat of Austro-Hungarian troops in the battle of Kolubara led to their expulsion

from Serbia and Belgrade, which was liberated by Serbian troops on 16 December.[9]

The second occupation of Serbia 1915-1918

Austro-Hungarian Military General Governorate (MGG) 1915-1918
The Serbian defense collapsed at the end of 1915. However, the Austro-Hungarian occupation
policy was plagued by differences and ambiguities. During the visit of the German Emperor to
Vienna, the Austro-Hungarian monarch, Francis Joseph I, Emperor of Austria (1830-1916),
expressed his approval for a radical solution, namely annexation. Similarly, Ferdinand I, Tsar of
Bulgaria (1861-1948) and his Prime Minister Vasil Radoslavov (1854-1929) rejected the idea of a
possible restoration of Serbian independence.[10] In late November 1915, the Austro-Hungarian
Chief of the General Staff, Franz Conrad von Htzendorf, in his four memos and conversations
with the Emperor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Istvan Burian von Rajecz (1851-1922), also
sought the annexation of Serbia, with the exception of territory promised to Bulgaria. He suggested
annexing Montenegro and partitioning Albania with Greece, or alternatively leaving Albania under
the sole protection of Austro-Hungary. He proposed that the occupation and annexation of Serbia
be interpreted as punishment for causing the World War.[11] Montenegrins were to be pushed
into the mountains. [12] On 4 December 1915, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Count Istvan Tisza
(1861-1918), proposed the demarcation of territory along the Sava and Danube rivers in a
memorandum presented to the emperor. The remaining territory would be reduced to a
mountainous area, economically, politically and militarily subordinate to the empire. Only after a
long period, and with the colonization of Hungarians and Germans in Srem, Banat and Baka, was
this area to be included in the boundaries of the empire.[13]
Berlin also proposed two solutions, suggesting either the total cessation of Serbia and Montenegro
to Austro-Hungary, or their continued existence with significantly reduced territory, united and
subordinated to Austro-Hungary. The consistent German attitude was to support Bulgarian
expansion at the expense of Serbia, within the limits agreed upon by the treaty of alliance from 6
September 1915, but with the possibility for further expansion.[14] Internal disagreements over
policy toward occupied Serbia impacted the organization of the Austro-Hungarian Military General
Governorate (Militrgeneralgouvernement, or MGG). The first Governor-General, Johann Graf
Salis-Seewis (1862-1940), was appointed by the Emperor in late 1915 and took office in early
January 1916, acting as the highest authority on all military, administrative and economic issues.
Otto Gellinek (1876-1919) became his chief of staff. Tisza succeeded in reinforcing the Hungarian
position by including a civilian commissar appointed by the Hungarian government as the deputy
to the Military Governor-General. The first civilian commissar, sent to Belgrade on 17 January, was
the Hungarian historian Ludwig Thalloczy (1857-1916).[15]
This division of power quickly proved dysfunctional and led to a sharp clash between the military
and civilian as well as between Austrian and Hungarian authorities. The steps taken under Salis-

Seewiss command were interpreted in Budapest as preparation for full annexation, and Tisza
submitted a complaint to the Emperor and Archduke Friedrich, Duke of Teschen (1856-1936). His
argument prevailed and Salis-Seewis and Gellinek were replaced. At the end of July 1916 General
Adolf Baron von Remen (1855-1932) and Colonel Hugo Kerchnawe (1872-1949) were appointed
Governor and Chief of Staff respectively and remained in office until the end of the war. In
November 1916 Thalloczy died in a train crash. In January 1917 Teodor Kussevich, a high official
in the Bosnian-Herzegovinian provincial government, was appointed as his successor.[16]
The MGG, however, was under the prevailing influence of the army, and its structures were
directly subordinated to the Austro-Hungarian Supreme Command, which represented the MGG
before the Hungarian and Austrian governments as well as German and Bulgarian authorities. The
territory was divided into twelve districts and Belgrade, each headed by district commanders but
controlled by repressive gendarmerie, military and intelligence agencies, and courts. About 70,000
troops were stationed in the MGG, with 50,000 of them available for military operations.
Additionally, sixteen special tracking squads of infantry were organized and attached to the
gendarmerie. In March 1917, the S gendarmerie Battalion was formed with 1,000 soldiers and
was supported by the Bosnia-Herzegovina gendarmerie battalion. Following Thalloczys support
for Albanian and Muslim leaders, over 8,000 volunteers, mostly Albanians, enlisted. They were
either attached to the Bosnian gendarmerie or included in the 14th Ottoman Army Corps, which
fought in Galicia. In 1917, in Novi Pazar a volunteer battalion was organized, and in Kosovska
Mitrovica Albanian volunteers also formed their own companies.[17] Bulgarian occupation
authorities also used the Albanian gendarmerie and irregular troops. On the Morava valley railway
German units were also deployed to access the front in Macedonia, while in Vranje a training
camp was set up for the 11th German army.[18]

The German occupation zone

In December 1915 Germany obtained control of railways, mines and agricultural resources in the
area east of Velika Morava, Juna Morava in Kosovo and the Vardar valley in return for its support
of Bulgaria. In these territories, formally part of the Bulgarian occupation zone, a German
occupation zone was established. This territory was under the command of the 11thEtappenInspection based in Ni. Beginning in fall 1916 the German 7th Military Railway Direction controlled
the railway to the Greek border and the railway line Ni-Sofia.[19] German headquarters and
command were placed in Skopje. The command of German operational groups on the
Thessaloniki front was based in Prilep and regional commands were located in Leskovac,
Predejane, Vranje, Bukovac, Kumanovo, Katlanovo, and Veles.[20]
Friction over the division of territory in Serbia 1915-1916

A secret agreement guaranteed the territorial expansion of Bulgaria in Macedonia and territories
east of the Morava River. Of the 87,000 square kilometers comprising Serbias territory, Bulgaria
was promised 59 percent or 51,425 square kilometers, with 2,664,168 inhabitants (55.6 percent of
Serbias population). [21] Approximately 2,139,030 inhabitants lived in Serbias remaining 37,875
square kilometers in 1914. The Serbian territory was reduced to 32,287 square kilometers with
1,741,390 inhabitants - without the territory of abac county (249,000 inhabitants) and Belgrade
(157,000 inhabitants). Plans to annex Kosovo and Sandjak and cede them to Greater Albania
were also discussed.[22] In late 1915 the Bulgarians penetrated deep into Kosovo and to Elbasan
in Albania with the intention of retaining these territories. In February 1916 they set up a civil
administration in Prizren and entered Djakovica, which sparked an Austro-Hungarian protest. Chief
of German High Command General Erich von Falkenhayn (1861-1922) feared that this dispute
could escalate into open warfare, with major consequences for the position of the Central Powers.
In its subsequent mediation Germany had more understanding for the Bulgarian demands. On 1
April 1916 the Austro-Hungarian Supreme Command accepted a compromise agreement which
defined a temporary demarcation line, ceded control over communication, and consented to the
evacuation of its troops, including from Prizren and Pritina, as well as the evacuation of Bulgarian
troops and civil authorities west of this line, including from Djakovica and Elbasan. The question of
how to divide Kosovo was again raised during the meeting between Burian von Rajecz, King
Ferdinand, and Radoslavov in Vienna on 5 December 1916.[23]
Policy toward the Population
Directives for the political administration in Serbia and the MGG statute were the juridical basis for
the Austro-Hungarian military administration in Serbia.[24] Courts, police, education, and tax
authorities were completely in the hands of the occupying administration. District commanders
appointed civil administration in towns and villages, led by the elders (mayors), mostly from the
ranks of the local population. A draconian system of punishments included fines, collective
responsibility, corporal punishments, hard labor, imprisonment and internment. The death penalty,
usually by hanging, was carried out numerous times in late 1915 following the invasion, peaking in
1916 after Romania had entered the war.[25] Economic exploitation included a wide range of
measures, from the devaluation of the Serbian dinar, to the control of factories, workshops and
mills, and the seizure of valuables and money from private owners. The MGG authorities carried
out mass deforestation, exploited mines, requisitioned housing, food, clothing, tools, and livestock,
confiscated non-ferrous metals (from church bells, sculptures, and metal dishes), and requisitioned
agricultural produce.[26] The population was brought to the brink of starvation, which, accompanied
by an outbreak of disease, resulted in a high mortality rate, especially among children and the
elderly. The MGG administrations attempts to improve the situation were insufficient.[27]
The occupation authorities abolished all Serbian institutions of national administration, as well as
cultural institutions and associations. During the occupation Belgrade University was closed. The

use of Cyrillic was officially banned and replaced by the Latin alphabet. [28] Art and cultural artifacts
from museums, libraries, church treasuries and archives were confiscated. The MGG authorities
removed books of suspicious content from public and private libraries; school curricula were
similarly purged of any independent Serbian content. For the re-education of Serbian children
during Salis-Seewis time in office, teachers were recruited almost exclusively from the ranks of
Austro-Hungarian noncommissioned officers; later, school staff was brought from the Monarchy
(with the increased participation of local teachers). Their task was to instill loyalty to the Emperor
in the minds of Serbian children and youth.[29] Commonplace assertions about the goals of AustroHungarian policy in Serbia and Montenegro were that it was a civilizing mission. As a part of this
mission improvised schools for Serbian boys in internment camps in Austrian Braunau (about
800 students) and in Hungarian Neszider (with seventy-five students) were opened.[30] The
occupation authorities had little confidence in the small group of local Austrophile collaborators,
and their role remained marginal.[31]
Austro-Hungarian military circles were obsessed with the dangers of guerrilla action (Komitagjis)
in Serbia. This was seen as a product of the Balkan mentality, an inclination to non-regular
warfare that needed to be suppressed through severe force.[32] The deportation of civilians, which
started in 1914, snowballed in 1916 upon Romanias entry into the war and after the outbreak of
the Toplica uprising in 1917. Between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbian civilians of both sexes and all
age groups were sent to internment camps in Austro-Hungary and Bulgaria. At first, these
measures targeted intellectuals, clergy, and those who had been politically active before the war or
were members of national organizations.[33] German authorities deported some internees to the
territory of the Reich and to the Ottoman Empire, including to Constantinople, Anatolia and
Mesopotamia, where they worked as forced laborers to construct the Baghdad Railway.[34] A high
rate of mortality from disease and starvation in tandem with disastrous war losses and a declining
birth rate caused severe depopulation in the occupied territories.[35]

The Bulgarian occupation zone

The territories under Bulgarian occupation were divided into two military general governorates; one
for Eastern Serbia with its command in Ni (Military Inspectorate of Morava); the second in Juna
Morava, and Serbian (Vardar) Macedonia, with its center in Skopje. In the military inspectorate of
Morava, the Bulgarian authorities occupation administration was considered temporary because
the ultimate intention was annexing these territories permanently. The decisive role of the military
was emphasized through the subordination of all civilian authorities to the military governor. The
military inspectorate of Morava was divided into six districts and the Pirot area. Municipalities in the
country set up by civil authorities were responsible to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the
Ministry of Health but were controlled by the local military commander. The bureaucratic apparatus
(with the exception of rural municipalities) was imported from Bulgaria. The areas of Kosovo were

under Bulgarian administration according to the agreement with Austro-Hungary. These areas
were ruled by the military but with the aim of eventually changing to a civilian administration. [36]
Repression and Policy of Bulgarization
The Bulgarian government declared the occupation zone in Serbia Bulgarian national territory, as
a majority Bulgarian population lived there. Serbian laws were suspended, but the Bulgarian
juridical system was not introduced, leading to lawlessness and repression. One Austro-Hungarian
report from the end of February 1916 stated that the work of the Bulgarianization is characterized
by two main directions: the destruction of the upper and middle class (intelligentsia) and the
forcible introduction of the Bulgarian language.[37] The memorandum of the Serbian Socialist
Party at the beginning of 1917 underlined the tremendous insecurity of the population: The
personal liberty of every Serbian citizen, and his life, are dependent on the goodwill of every police
agent, every Bulgarian gendarme...In the Austro-Hungarian area there at least exists some form of
public order...[38] The Bulgarian language was introduced into official use, the use of the Serbian
cyrillic alphabet was banned in schools, and cultural institutions were abolished. Simultaneously,
economic resources and private property were requisitioned and exploited, [39] while
representatives of the Serbian elites were deported and killed. The Serbian orthodox clergy were
also arrested and deported; adult males were sent to labor companies or forced to join the
Bulgarian Army. [40] In the governorate of Macedonia the ruling administration tried to gain support
for this policy from the pro-Bulgarian part of the population. Clerks, teachers and priests were
brought to Macedonia from Bulgaria. They organized propaganda, opened Bulgarian schools, held
public lectures, expanded the number of different Bulgarian associations, and printed publications
all in tandem with the use of coercive measures. These policies were also used on Albanians
and Turks in Kosovo and Macedonia.[41]
In addition to engaging military forces and police, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary
Organization (IMRO)[42] companies under the command of Colonel Alexander Protogerov (18671928) were widely used as an excuse for repression.[43] The occupation in the Bulgarian (but also
the Austro-Hungarian) zone led to the emergence of guerrilla and armed resistance, which
culminated in a mass uprising in Toplica in early 1917. The uprising was crushed after two months
with huge civilian casualties; according to an international commissions survey around 25,000
people were killed.[44]

The Austro-Hungarian occupation of Montenegro

A month after the occupation, the domestic rump government of Montenegro was abolished.[45]
Around the same time, on 1 March, the Military General Government of Montenegro was
established in accordance with the model applied to Serbia.[46] General Viktor Weber Edler von

Webenau (1861-1932), who had extensive authority in military and civilian matters, headed the
MGG until July 1917. After the reorganisation of the occupation administration, he was succeeded
in this position by reserve General Heinrich Graf Clam-Martinic (1863-1932). Otto Gellinek, the
former Austro-Hungarian envoy in Cetinje, was the first civilian commissioner to be appointed, but
he was soon relieved of his duties and appointed as a delegate to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at
the General Governorship, with Paul Baron von Sternbach (1869-1948) replacing him. The
occupation administration consisted of the Department for Military Affairs and the Department for
Civilian Affairs.[47] Very few domestic civil servants were included in the higher structure of the
occupation administration, as most of them were interned.[48] Domestic civil courts remained in
operation, but occupation military courts were introduced to try offences against the interests of
Austria-Hungary, such as the trial of the former minister Jovan Matanovi (18?-1917), who died in
internment and the metropolitan Gavrilo Doi (1881-1950).[49] Annexation as a measure for
neutralising threats to the Monarchy and the only rational solution was advocated by the
Austro-Hungarian Supreme Command, particularly the Chief of Staff Conrad von Htzendorf.[50]
Official Austro-Hungarian propaganda interpreted the occupation of Montenegro as a civilising
mission, much like in the case of Serbia.[51] The diminishing chances for a Central Power victory
prompted proposals in 1917 and 1918 concerning the future status of Serbia and Montenegro (as
reduced statelets dependent on the Monarchy), including their merger into a single unit under an
Austro-Hungarian archduke.[52]
Montenegro, with a population of 436,000 in 1917 was not of particular economic significance for
Austria-Hungary. Tax collection, which increased by between 100 percent and 200 percent during
the occupation, was irregular due to the poverty of the population, but still caused discontent
among both the Montenegrin and Albanian populations. Famine became widespread among the
civilian population. As early as March 1916 the occupation authorities had to approve deliveries of
food. Soup kitchens for the poor were opened, while those of better financial standing had to buy
food at high prices. The occupation authorities introduced compulsory work in agriculture and
cultivation,[53] and used domestic labor as well as prisoners of war to construct roads, a railroad
and military facilities.[54] Trade in cereals was prohibited, while the operation of mills, bread
production and operation of all enterprises involved in the processing and selling of food was
supervised. This encouraged fraud and enabled the emergence of a black market. Livestock, food,
kitchenware, church bells and other metal objects were requisitioned. Moreover, the population
was afflicted by epidemics of typhus, Spanish flu, tuberculosis, malaria, and syphilis.[55]
According to the General Governorships Chief of Staff, Gustav Hubka von Czernitz (1873-1962),
famine made the population apathetic to politics. [56]
As a result of military operations, schools in Montenegro ceased to open in the fall of 1915. Some
elementary schools were re-opened in March 1916, but regular activity did not start until October
1916. Some teachers were interned and some school buildings were converted into military

barracks. None of the six secondary schools nor the teachers and theological school operated
during the occupation.[57] A big obstacle for regular school attendance was widespread famine,
which particularly affected children. Curricula were adjusted to those used in Croatia and were
purged of any content relating to Serbia and Serbian history. In addition, the Latin script was
introduced in schools and for public use, while cyrillic was banned.[58] Some of the teaching staff
resigned in protest against these measures and as a consequence were sentenced to
imprisonment and internment. A number of schools were also forced to suspend classes due to an
outbreak of typhus in spring 1918. Occupation authorities awarded a modest number of
scholarships for education in the territory of the Monarchy in secondary schools and universities
(seventy-one scholarships were awarded in 1918). However, many boys, aged fourteen to
seventeen, were also interned.[59]
During the occupation of Montenegro there were attempts to organize armed uprisings, primarily
by former ministers and officers of the Montenegrin Army. The passivity of the population, the
populations cooperation with the authorities, the confiscation of arms, denunciations, a general
lack of organization, and reprisals by the occupation authorities prevented these attempts. A
widespread form of armed resistance, particularly during 1917 and 1918, were actions by guerrilla
companies who attacked military posts, gendarmerie stations, and communications.[60] The
number of active comitaji (guerrilla forces) was estimated at between 1,000 and 1,100. Several
prominent leaders of the Toplica uprising in early 1917 were officers of the Montenegrin Army. In
reprisal the occupation forces executed 489 people in just four counties. Representatives of the
Orthodox Church and high government officials who had not been interned also condemned the
comitaji action. The reduced intensity of resistance was the result of a mixture of reprisals and
amnesty. The most prominent leaders of the resistance, General Radomir Veovi (1871-1938)
and former minister Milosav Raievi (1875-?), surrendered to Austro-Hungarian authorities in
January 1918. Towards the end of occupation the authorities started to arm loyal populations and
use them as auxiliary forces in the fight against comitaji.[61] The comitaji units, in joint action with
the Serbian army, liberated Montenegro in late October/ early November 1918.[62]

Romania: Between Occupation and Collaboration

The occupation system in Romania differed from the regimes established in other parts of SouthEastern Europe, as it was purely military. This was due to the fact that there was a shortage of
civilian personnel; even filling the posts of the military-occupation personnel was a continuous
problem. Its late establishment also influenced its formation. The economic situation called for a
more pragmatic attitude toward both representatives of the local political and business elite and
the general population. In addition, the degree of repression was comparably lower than in the
surrounding occupied regions.
The occupied area (about two-thirds of the territory of Romania) was placed under the

administration of Oberkommando Mackensen (OKM) headed by General Field Marshal August von
Mackensen (1849-1945) and General Robert von Kosch (1856-1942) as Generalquartiermeister.
Its first seat was in Alexandria and then from late 1916 on in Bucharest. It was subdivided into a
military administration area; a stage area (Etappengebiet) of the 9th Army; an operational area of
the 9th Army; an operational Area of the 3rd Bulgarian Army; and a German stage administration
(Etappenverwaltung) in Dobruja. Bulgaria annexed the area of Southern Dobruja, which remained
outside the OKM occupation system.[63]
The military administration area encompassed the city of Bucharest with fourteen districts.[64] This
area of 65,064 square kilometers represented half of the territory of the Romanian state. Eleven
districts were administered by German commands (Distriktkommandanturen), while three districts
were under the Austro-Hungarian military administration. Districts were divided into German
Etappenkommandanturen, Austro-Hungarian Etappenstationskommandos and local commands
(Ortskommandantur). This network of the military occupation system held the domestic
administrative structure under its control. The interests of the Bulgarian, Turkish and AustroHungarian allies in this territory were represented by envoys and consular representatives. Six
departments were subordinated to the Military General Governor; however, the Economic
Headquarters (Wirtschaftsstab), the most important department and the central occupation
institution, remained independent. The exploitation of oil and agricultural resources, which
Germany and Austria-Hungary competed over, was of particular interest.[65]
The stage area of the 9th Army (districts of Braila, Buzaui Ramnicul-Sarat) was accountable to the
OKM, as well as to the 9th Army. The occupation administrations central task was to control the
local economy. The German Stage Administration area in Dobruja (7,700 square kilometers) was
established in late October 1916 and was in operation until 7 May 1918, when the peace treaty
was signed in Bucharest. In the south it bordered the area of Dobruja that had been annexed by
Bulgaria, and in the north it bordered the operational area of the Bulgarian 3rd Army. Bulgaria also
hoped to annex this territory where, against the will of its allies, it had appointed local
administrators from autumn 1916 until the end of that year. At the beginning of 1917 an agreement
was reached under which Bulgarian prefectures and police administration could operate in this
area.
The occupation authorities had to relinquish many of the tasks at various levels of government to
representatives of the local political elite. Here, the Romanian elite saw an opportunity to preserve
its position, thus creating a symbiotic relationship with the occupation authorities. Politicians from
the pro-German Conservative Party, such as Petre Carp (1837-1919), Alexandru Marghiloman
(1854-1925) and Titu Maiorescu (1840-1917) were a separate group, cooperating with occupation
authorities and helping to run the occupation system.[66] In 1917 acting officials, who replaced
state secretaries, were appointed to influential positions in Romanian ministries in occupied
territories. While preserving their control, the military-occupation authorities left the management to

the local administration in the judiciary, education, internal affairs, and in the regulation of the local
economy.[67] However, the Romanian elite who refused to collaborate were branded as politically
suspicious and were interned, deported to prison camps in Bulgaria, or taken hostage, to be
exchanged for interned citizens of the Central Powers.[68]
The Romanian army was reactivated in July 1917 and fought against German troops until early
1918. Negotiations in Brest-Litovsk for Russias withdrawal from the war left Romania without
Allied support and assistance, forcing the Romanian government to conclude an armistice and
start peace negotiations. After the resignation of General Alexandru Averescus (1859-1938)
government the new pro-German government of Alexandru Marghiloman signed the Peace Treaty
of Bucharest in May. According to this treaty, Romania had to disband the majority of its armed
forces, leave Dobruja and hand over control of strategic crossings in the Carpathians.[69]
After the elections held under occupation, which were boycotted by the liberals, Marghilomans
government gained power and ratified the agreement with the Central Powers. The Romanian
King, however, refused to sign the agreement.[70] Despite the establishment of the Romanian
government, actual power remained in the hands of the OKM. The number of occupation troops
was reduced, as was part of the occupation administration, while the country remained divided in
two: the area that until then had remained unoccupied with the addition of Russian Bessarabia
was left to the control of the Romanian government, while occupied territory remained under the
control of the occupation administration.[71] Meanwhile, economic exploitation of Romanian
resources intensified. [72]
Economic circumstances deteriorated due to further devaluation of the Romanian currency, a poor
harvest, the continuous practice of requisition, and the export of grains, livestock and other
foodstuffs by Germany and Austria-Hungarian. Moreover, a German company was awarded the
right to the oil in the region for a period of thirty years, a German-Austro-Hungarian company had a
monopoly on the export of wood, and Austria-Hungary took over the shipyard in Turnu-Severin.
The National Bank and public finances were also placed under the control of German
commissioners. Until the Treaty of Bucharest was signed, in addition to six military divisions, the
Central Powers maintained special units for the economic exploitation of the Romanian economy.
As a measure to help alleviate the great shortage of food and to control social unrest, in May 1918
the Romanian government enacted a law that introduced compulsory work in agriculture and the
cultivation of all arable land. In the spring of 1918 the German command requested that the
Romanian government send food from Moldavia to alleviate shortages. [73]
After Allied forces penetrated from the southern Balkans in September 1918, Bulgaria capitulated
on 27 September. Marghilomans government crumbled, leading King Ferdinand to establish the
generals cabinet. After Serbian and French troops crossed the Danube on 10 November,
Romania re-entered the war. German troops retreated from Romanian territory, while the King
returned to Bucharest on 1 December 1918. On the same day, the Great National Assembly in

Alba Iulia proclaimed the unification of Romanians from the territories of Austria-Hungary with
Romania.[74]

Albania: Besetztes Freundesland

Essad Pasha Toptani (1863-1920) conquered Durres (Durazzo) with the intention of gaining
recognition as the President of the Albanian interim government and commander of its armed
forces. With the entry of the Ottoman Empire into the war, Esad-Pasha found himself besieged in
Durres until Serbian troops arrived in the summer 1915, placing northern Albania under Serbian
control. In the fall of 1914, the Italians occupied the island of Sasseno, Valona, and the whole of
southern Albania. Montenegro occupied Skadar (Shkoder) and part of northern Albania in summer
1915.
In January 1916 Austro-Hungarian troops occupied the territory from Valona to Lake Ohrid.
Albania was considered a Besetztes Freundesland (Friendly Occupied Country).[75] Military
occupation was based in Skadar (Shkoder) and the occupation authorities worked together with a
local administrative council. Local administration was left to the Albanians; an Albanian
gendarmerie was formed and Albanian schools opened. The occupying authorities built roads and
other infrastructure, carried out geological, archaeological and ethnographic researches, and
organized the first population census.[76] Dissatisfaction with the regimes intention to confiscate
weapons and the worsening economic situation in 1917 were calmed by promises of full autonomy
under Austro-Hungarian protection.
After the withdrawal of the Greek troops at the end of 1915, Italy controlled Valona and southern
Albania. The Bolsheviks publication of the Treaty of London, making Italys territorial claims in
Albania public, caused discontent among the Albanians. In response the Italian authorities issued a
declaration of independence and unification of the whole of Albania, allowing the establishment
of local administration troops and courts. In the fall of 1916 French troops occupied the area of
Korca but left control to the Greek government. Due to the resistance of local Albanian leaders and
the threat of rebellion against the Greek authorities, the French General Maurice Sarrail (18561929) sent his troops into Korca. The French also set up a local administration and a gendarmerie,
opened Albanian schools, and issued local currency and postage stamps. This autonomy of
Korca lasted until Greeces entry into the conflict, but the area remained under direct French
military administration until the end of the war.[77]

Conclusion
In September and October 1918 the occupation system of the Central Powers in the Balkans
collapsed under the offensive of the Entente forces and its Balkan allies, almost three years after
its formation. Serbian troops entered Skopje on 24 September and Ni on the 11 October.
Belgrade was liberated on 1 November. On the same day, the Romanian King Ferdinand returned

to Bucharest to receive the French troops. For the civilian population, demographically and
economically crippled and almost completely destroyed in Serbia, this was the end of a long agony
brought about by war and occupation. The situation was similar in Montenegro. The negative
effects of the occupation regimes on Serbia and Montenegro were visible for a long time after the
creation of the new Yugoslav state and remained profoundly embedded in collective memory, in
turn impacting the political relations with the countries that were occupying powers. This also
deeply influenced the collective behavior during the new occupation in the Second World War. The
negative effects of occupation, especially on the economy, were also visible in Romania for a long
time.

Milan Ristovi, University of Belgrade

Section Editors: Tamara Scheer; Richard C. Hall

Notes
1. Mitrovi, Andrej: Prodor na Balkan I Srbija 1908-1918. Srbija u planovima Austro-Ugarske I
Nemake 1908-1918 [Breakthrough in the Balkans and Serbia 1908 to 1918. Serbia in the
Plans of the Austro-Hungary and Germany 1908-1918], Belgrade 1981, pp. 62-85.
2. Mitrovi, Andrej: Serbia u Prvom svetskom ratu [Serbia in First World War], Belgrade 1984,
pp. 59-63. (English edition: Mitrovi, Andrej: Serbias Great War 1914-1918, London 2007).
Henceforth I will cite the Serbian edition of Mitrovis Serbias Great War, though I have used
the English translation of the title for ease of reading.
3. Mitrovi, Serbias Great War, p. 59.
4. Mitrovi, Breakthrough in the Balkans, pp. 191-203.
5. Rakoevi, Novica: Montenegro in the First World War 1914-1918, Cetinje 1969, pp. 1921; 42-46.
6. Pavlowitch, Stevan K: The Balkans 1804-1945, London and New York 1999, p. 213;
Mayerhofer, Lisa: Zwischen Freund und Feind - Deutsche Besatzung in Rumnien 19161918, Munich 2010, pp. 30-31.
7. Pavlowitch, The Balkans, pp. 211-212.
8. During the first invasion between 3,500 and 4,000 civilians were killed. Between 1,500 and
2,000 civilians were deported alone from the city of abac to the internment camps in
Hungary. See Stojanevi, Vladimir: Serbia and the Serbian people during the war and
occupation of 1914-1918), Leskovac 1988, pp. 6-7.
9. Pavlowitch, Stevan K.: Serbia: The History Behind the Name, Belgrade 2004, p. 122.
10. Mitrovi, Breakthrough in the Balkans, pp. 187-190; 316.

11. Mitrovi, Breakthrough in the Balkans, pp. 312 -313; 328-331; see also Mitrovi, Serbia in
First World War; Scheer, Tamara: Forces and Force: Austria-Hungarys Occupation Regime
in Serbia during the First World War, in: Prvi svetski rat i Balkan 90 godina kasnije.
Tematski zbornik radova [World War I and the Balkans 90 Years Later], Belgrade 2011,
pp. 161-178.
12. Protokoll, Wien, 7. 1, 1916, in: Komjati, Miklos: Protokolle des Gemeinsamen Ministerrates
des sterreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie (1914-1918), in: Publikationen des ungarischen
Staatsarchivs, II. Quellenpublikationen, Vol. 10, Budapest 1966; Mitrovi, Breakthrough in
the Balkans, p. 316-317; Scheer, Tamara: Zwischen Front und Heimat, Vienna 2009, pp. 2930.
13. Mitrovi, Prodor na Balkan [Breakthrough in the Balkans], pp. 316-317; Mitrovi, Serbia in
First World War, pp. 330-335.
14. Avramovski, ivko: Bugarska i Centralne Sile 1914-1918 [Bulgaria and Central Powers
1914-1918], Belgrade 1985, p. 173-212; Mitrovi, Serbia, pp. 333-337.
15. Mitrovi, Andrej: Uprising fightings in Serbia 1916-1918, Belgrade 1987, pp. 41, 42.
16. Mitrovi, Serbia in First World War, pp. 337-343; orevi, Dimitrije: The AustroHungarian occupation regime in Serbia and its collapse in 1918, in: Scientific Conference
on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
and the creation of the Yugoslav state), Zagreb 1969, pp. 205-226. On this problem see
also: Gumz, Jonathan E: The Resurrection and Collapse of Empire in Habsburg Serbia,
1914-1918, Cambridge 2009, pp. 3-6; Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, p. 32-33;
Scheer, Forces and Force. pp.161-178.
17. Mitrovi, Serbia in First World War, pp. p. 392-393.
18. Mitrovi, Uprising fightings in Serbia, . 45.
19. Mitrovi, Andrej: The Central Powers and strategic communications in the Balkans in
1915 in: Serbia 1915, Belgrade 1986, pp. 183-203.
20. Mitrovi, Andrej: The creation of the German occupation zones and the Austro-Hungarian
occupation administration in Serbia: Fall 1915-Spring 1916 in: Istorijski glasnik, vol. 1-2
(1977), pp. 7-37; Mitrovi, Serbia, pp. 336, 346-357.
21. Avramovski, ivko: Bugarska i Centralne Sile 1914-1918 [Bulgaria and Central Powers
1914-1918], pp. 150-171.
22. Mitrovi, Andrej: Tajni ugovor izmeu Centralnih sila i Bugarske od 6. Septembra 1915.
godine [A secret agreement between the Central Powers and Bulgaria on 6 September in
1915 Year.] in: Meunarodni problem, vol. 3-4 (1978), pp. 47-65; Mitrovi, Uprising fightings
in Serbia, p. 28-29.
23. Avramovski, ivko: Austrougarsko-bugarske suprotnosti oko deobe Srbije [The AustroHungarian-Bulgarian contradiction about the division of Serbia] in: Serbia 1916. Nauni skup
[Serbia 1916. Scientific Conference], Belgrade 1987, pp. 65-82; Avramovski, Bugarske
pretenzije na aneksiju delova Kosova u Prvom svetskom ratu (1915-1916) [Bulgarias claims
on the annexation of parts of Kosovo in the First World War (1915-1916] in: Jugoslovenskobugarski odnosi u XX veku [Yugoslav-Bulgarian relations in the twentieth century] Belgrade
1982, 110-151; Mitrovi, Prodor na Balkan [Breakthrough in the Balkans], pp. 318-323;
Mitrovi, Serbia in the First World War, pp. 342-344.
24. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, pp. 85, 86; Mladenovi, Boica: Porodica u Srbiji u
rvom svetskom ratu [Family in Serbia during First World War] Belgrade 2006, p. 22.
25. Stojanevi, Serbia and Serbian People during the War and Occupation, p. 35.

26. Mili, Danica: Privreda pod okupacionim reimom [The economy of the occupation
regime] in: Serbia 1918. Godine i stvaranje jugoslovenske drave, [Serbia 1918 and the
creation of the Yugoslav state], Belgrade 1989, p. 9-17.
27. Stojanevi, Serbia and Serbian People during the War and Occupation, pp. 35, 36;
Mitrovi Uprising fightings in Serbia, pp. 49-61.
28. This order was withdrawn as it could not be implemented in practice. See Scheer,
Zwischen Front und Heimat, pp.194-195.
29. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, p. 90.
30. Popovi, Ljubodrag: Osnovno kolstvo u Srbiji pod okupacijom [Primary education under
occupation] in: Serbia 1918. godine i stvaranje jugoslovenske drave [Serbia 1918 and the
creation of the Yugoslav state], Belgrade 1989, p. 35-41.
31. Mitrovi, Serbia in the First World War, . 381, 382, 385, 386; Mladenovi, Porodica u
Srbiji u rvom svetskom ratu [Family in Serbia during First World War], . 114-119.
32. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, pp. 113-119; See Gumz, The Resurrection, pp. 2126; and further.
33. According to Ministry of Education data collected in 1918, seventy priests were taken to
Bulgaria and fifty-six to Austria-Hungary for internment. Sladjana Bojkovi, Miloje Pri (ed.):
The suffering of the Serbian people in Serbia 1914-1918. Documents, List of interned priests
from Serbia, Belgrade, 2000, p. 384-387.
34. Stojanevi, Serbia and Serbian People during the War and Occupation, pp. 36, 37, 51;
Popovi, Ljubodrag: Serbian internees in camps Austro-Hungarian in: Serbia 1916,
Belgrade 1987, pp. 309-320.
35. Mitrovi, Uprising fightings in Serbia, . 51-58; Stojanevi, Serbia and Serbian People
during the War and Occupation, p. 37.
36. Avramovski, Austrougarsko-bugarske suprotnosti oko deobe Srbije [The AustroHungarian-Bulgarian contradiction about the division of Serbia], p. 82.
37. Bianchi, Bruna: Crimini di guerra e contro l'umanita. Le violenze ai civili sul fronte orientale
(1914-1919), Milano 2012, pp. 163-186; Stojanevi, Serbia and Serbian People during the
War and Occupation, pp. 49, 50.
38. Stojanevi, Serbia and Serbian People during the War and Occupation, pp. 59 and 60.
39. Andrejevi, Sevdelin: The economic plundering of Serbia during the Bulgarian
occupation. in: Serbia 1918 and the creation of a Yugoslav state, . 19-32.
40. Ibid.
41. Mitrovi, Serbia in First World War, p. 379.
42. IMRO was organized in 1893 as a pro-Bulgarian and anti-Ottoman movement with the goal
to gain autonomy for Macedonia. The armed clashes with the Ottoman army started in 1896,
and later also occurred with the rival Serbian and Greek armed groups. For more
information, see: Troebst, Stefan: Mussolini, Makedonien und die Mchte, 1922-1930, Innere
Mazedonische Orevolutinre Organization in der Sdosteuropapolitik des faschistischen
Italien, Cologne/Vienna 1987; Frusetta, James, Common Heroes, Divided Claims: IMRO
Between Macedonia and Bulgaria, in: Lampe, John/Mazower, Mark: Ideologies and national
Identities. The case of twentieth-century South Eastern Europe, Budapest 2004; Tasi,
Dmitar: Vojno-politika akcija makedonstvujuih u Kraljevini SHS-Jugoslaviji 1919-1934
[Military political action of "Makedonstvujui" in Kingdom of SHS/Yugoslavia 1919-1934]. In:
Arhiv, 3, 2002.

43. Stojanevi, Serbia and Serbian People during the War and Occupation, . 57-64;
Pisarri, Milovan: Bulgarian Atrocities in Serbia and Macedonia during the First World War.
Balcanica 2011; Pisarri, The suppression of Toplica uprising led by VMRO repression in
Vojno-istorijski glasnik, vol. 1-2 (2011), pp. 28-48.
44. Mitrovi, Uprising fightings in Serbia 1916-1918, Belgrade 1987.
45. The King of Montenegro Nikola Petrovi (1841-1922) left Podgorica on 19 January 1916,
and was transferred to Italy by an Italian ship. See: Rakoevi, Novica: Montenegro in the
First World War 1914-1918, p. 184.
46. Within the borders established after the First Balkan War, including the regions of Metohija
and Sanjak.
47. Rakoevi, Montenegro, pp. 235-236.
48. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, p. 37.
49. Rakoevi, Montenegro, p. 242. During the occupation changes were undertaken in the
domestic judiciary system and in the method for appointment of judges. See Scheer,
Zwischen Front und Heimat, pp. 35-36.
50. Rakoevi, Montenegro, pp. 199-200.
51. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, pp. 180-181.
52. The Emperors brother, Maximilian von Habsburg (1832-1867), was also considered.
53. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, pp. 152, 153, 158
54. Rakoevi, Montenegro, pp. 280-284.
55. The death rate in 1918 was up to three times the birth rate. Thus, in February 1918 there
were 400 births and 1,200 deaths; in April 558 births and 1,335 deaths. See Rakoevi,
Montenegro, p. 293.
56. Ibid, p. 266.
57. In 1916/17 total of 163 Serbian and nine Albanian elementary schools were opened. See
Rakoevi, Montenegro, p. 250.
58. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, p. 190.
59. Scheer, pp. 251-252. In 1918 there were around 10,000 people from Montenegro in prison
camps in Austria-Hungary. See Ibid, p. 327.
60. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, p. 37.
61. Ibid, pp. 113-118.
62. Rakoevi, Montenegro, p. 414.
63. Mayerhofer, Zwischen Freund und Feind, pp. 48-49.
64. Bucharest was placed under the command of the Imperial Government of the Bucharest
Fortress (Kaiserliches Gouvernement der Festung Bukarest). Ibid, p. 54.
65. Mayerhofer, pp. 115-156. These headquarters had eighteen departments with 108 groups
and sub-groups in 1917. See also: Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, p. 43; Ocetea,
Andrei (ed.): The History of the Romanian people, Novi Sad 1979, p. 285.
66. Mayerhofer, Zwischen Freund und Feind, pp. 66-70.
67. Ibid, pp. 289-345.
68. Ibid, pp. 92-106.
69. Pavlowitch, A History of the Balkans 1804-1945, pp. 217, 218.

70. Ibid, p. 219.

71. Mayerhofer, Zwischen Freund und Feind, p. 349.
72. Ibid, 345-361.
73. Ibid, 355-361; Ocetea, The History of the Romanian People, pp. 290, 291.
74. Pavlowitch, A History of the Balkans, p. 221. The accession of Bessarabia was proclaimed
on 28 November 1918; ibid, 324; Ocetea, The History of the Romanian people, pp. 290-296.
75. Scheer, Zwischen Front und Heimat, pp. 38-42; 59.
76. Ibid, pp. 199, 203.
77. Bartl, Peter: Albanians, Belgrade 2001, . 170-178.
Selected Bibliography

Avramovski, ivko: Bulgaria's pretensions on the annexation of parts of Kosovo in the

First World War (1915-1916): Yugoslav-Bulgarian relations in the twentieth century, Vol. 2,
volume 2, Belgrade 1982, pp. 110-159.
Avramovski, ivko: Austro-Hungarian-Bulgarian contradiction about the division of
Serbia: Serbia 1916th Scientific Conference, Institute of History, Belgrade 1987, pp. 65-82.
Bartl, Peter: Albanci: od srednjeg veka do danas (Albanians: from Medieval times till
present), Belgrade 2001: Clio.
Bianchi, Bruna: Crimini di guerra e contro l'umanit: le violenze ai civili sul fronte
orientale (1914-1919), Milan 2012: UNICOPLI.
Mayerhofer, Lisa: Zwischen Freund und Feind - Deutsche Besatzung in Rumnien
1916-1918, Munich 2010: Meidenbauer.
Mili, Danica: The economy under the occupation regime, in: Aleksic-Pejkovic,
Ljiljana / Terzic, Slavenko (eds.): Srbija 1918. godine i stvaranje jugoslovenske drave
(Serbia 1918 and the creation of a Yugoslav state), Belgrade 1989: Istorijski Institut.
Mitrovic, Andrej: Prodor na Balkan: Srbija u planovima Austro-Ugarske i Nemake,
1908-1918 (A breakthrough in the Balkans. Serbia in Austro-Hungarian and German
planning 1908-1918), Belgrade 1981: Nolit.
Mitrovic, Andrej: Serbia's Great War, 1914-1918, West Lafayette 2007: Purdue University
Press.
Mitrovic, Andrej: The Breakthrough in the Balkans and Serbia from 1908 to 1918. Serbia
in the plans of the Austro-Hungary and Germany 1908-1918, Belgrade 1981: Nolit.
Mitrovic, Andrej: Stvaranje nemake okupacione zone i austrougarske okupacione
uprave u Srbiji (jesen 1915-prolee 1916) (The creation of the German occupation
zones and the Austro-Hungarian occupation administration in Serbia (Fall 1915Spring 1916)), in: Istorijski glasnik 1-2, 1977.
Mitrovic, Andrej: The Central Powers and strategic roads in the Balkans in 1915, in:
Aleksic-Pejkovic, Ljiljana / Milic, Danica (eds.): Srbija 1915 (Serbia 1915), Belgrade 1986:
Istorijski institut, pp. 183-203.
Mitrovic, Andrej: A secret agreement between the Central Powers and Bulgaria on 6
September in 1915, in: Meunarodni problemi 3-4, 1978, pp. 47-65.

Mladenovic, Bozica / Zivkovic, Tibor: Porodica u Srbiji u Prvom svetskom ratu (The
family in Serbia in the First World War), Belgrade 2006: Istorijski Institut.
Otetea, Andrei: The history of the Romanian people, New York 1972: Twayne
Publishers.
Pavlowitch, Stevan K.: A history of the Balkans, 1804-1945, London; New York 1999:
Addison-Wesley Longman.
Pavlowitch, Stevan K.: Serbia: the history behind the name, London 2001: Hurst & Co..
Pisarri, Milovan: Bulgarian atrocities in Serbia and Macedonia during the First World
War, in: Balcanica 43, 2011.
Pisarri, Milovan: Suppression of the Toplica uprising: IMRO at the forefront of
repression, in: Vojno-istoriski glasnik 1-2, 2011, pp. 28-48.
Popovi, Ljubodrag: Primary education under the occupation, in: Aleksic-Pejkovic,
Ljiljana / Terzic, Slavenko (eds.): Srbija 1918. godine i stvaranje jugoslovenske drave
(Serbia 1918 and the creation of a Yugoslav state), Belgrade 1989: Istorijski Institut.
Rakocevic, Novica: Crna Gora u prvom svjetskom ratu 1914-1918 (Montenegro in the
First World War 1914-1918), Cetinje 1969: Istorijski Institut Titograd.
Scheer, Tamara: Forces and force: Austria-Hungarys occupation regime in Serbia
during the First World War, in: Terzi, Milan (ed.): Prvi svetski rat i Balkan: 90 godina
kasnije. Tematski zbornik radova (WWI and the Balkans 90 Years later), Belgrade 2011:
Institut za strategijska istraivanja Odeljenje za vojnu istoriju, pp. 161-179.
Scheer, Tamara: Zwischen Front und Heimat: Osterreich-Ungarns Militarverwaltungen
im Ersten Weltkrieg, Vienna 2009: Lang.
Stojancevic, Vladimir: Srbija i srpski narod za vreme rata i okupacije: 1914-1918 g.
(Serbia and the Serbian people during the war and occupation 1914-1918), Leskovac
1988: Biblioteka Narodnog muzeja u Leskovcu.
Article Last Modified
25 January 2016
Citation
Ristovi, Milan: Occupation during and after the War (South East Europe), in: 1914-1918-online.
International Encyclopedia of the First World War, ed. by Ute Daniel, Peter Gatrell, Oliver Janz,
Heather Jones, Jennifer Keene, Alan Kramer, and Bill Nasson, issued by Freie Universitt Berlin,
Berlin 2014-10-08. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15463/ie1418.10481.
License
2014 This text is licensed under: CC by-NC-ND 3.0 Germany - Attribution, Non-commercial, No
Derivative Works.